Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tom, > To be accurate, there was nothing in the ruling about this being a criminal > offense. While that _might be true, I ask you exactly how you see this measure being enforced? When an individual sees a photographer snapping photos in his direction, what do you think their reaction will be? In my mind, any resulting violence between the two parties would be weighed against each other; like 'offsetting' penalties in American football. A judge would be challenged to decide what a proper 'victims' response to a 'perp' breaking the law, might be. Here, in the US, it would probably be decided based on public lewdness or non-criminal tresspass precedent (My guess). One way or the other, this law is only an invitation to violence. The arrogance/anger in it can already be sampled if you listen closely to this debate, here and now. I am very interested in knowing what harm can be proven from the horrors of being photographed in public; especially considering that no other form of expression is controlled by the ruling. And what, pray tell, is the inherent difference between my camera and that of the bank machine, which also includes a view of the street? Does Quebec use public cameras to record drivers running stoplights or police surveillance cameras? Any of these, were they capable of being used to zero-in on passersby, would also run afoul of this case law. Danny Gonzalez